MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2407346990 · doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000001760

Understanding, Avoiding, and Managing Severe Filler Complications

2015· review· en· W2407346990 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePlastic & Reconstructive Surgery · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Rejuvenation and Surgery Techniques
Canadian institutionsD2L (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse effectFiller (materials)MedicineIntensive care medicineVascular occlusionSurgeryInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Any injectable filler may elicit moderate-to-severe adverse events, ranging from nodules to abscesses to vascular occlusion. Fortunately, severe adverse events are uncommon for the majority of fillers currently on the market. Because these are rare events, it is difficult to identify the relevant risk factors and to design the most efficacious treatment strategies. Poor aesthetic outcomes are far more common than severe adverse events. These in contrast should be easily avoidable by ensuring that colleagues receive proper training and follow best practices.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.223
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.127 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it